“Where I am not understood, it shall be concluded that something very useful and profound is couched underneath.” --Jonathan Swift

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Ted Cruz on Chuck Hagel: 'Morning Joe' Gets the Vapors, and the Limits of Military Recognition

There are currently a variety of spectator sports in
Washington DC (in the Pacific Northwest out here, one must always add the 'DC'
for clarity, as opposed to those who believe that anything between the Acela
Corridor and Hollywood is a vast wasteland). Those most prominent are the
Senate confirmation hearings for Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense, along
with those of John Brennan for CIA Director (wherein the Code Pink crowd has
been less than cooperative in the process of fulfilling the wishes of their
Dear Leader).

For former Senator Hagel, it has not been smooth sailing
to say the least. Despite his previous party affiliation of Republican, that
corner has provided scant support, and one of his more pointed critics has been
the new Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, with full display of his prosecutorial
talents honed as the most experienced Solicitor General in the history of
Texas. Lest one garner too much sympathy for the man on the stand, it is
hard for even his top supporters to deny that Hagel's testimony was
embarrassingly inept – but they do, with a well-practiced straight face.

Hagel and Cruz (Salon)

The peanut gallery that is the Morning Joe [Scarborough] Show on MSNBC (in case you missed it, and considering the
size of its audience you likely did) were shocked – shocked – by the
comment from Senator Cruz about how the Iranian regime had endorsed Hagel's
nomination "formally and publicly". What followed was a
synergism of increasing hyperbole (ably assisted by a bait and switch reference
to remarks by Senator Inhofe, not Cruz) which amply demonstrated Mark Twain's observation
that an amplified use of adjectives merely lessens whatever argument there may
be. ("When you catch an adjective, kill it.") The panel
begins its remarks in high gear, then tut-tuts and harrumphs its way around the
table, increasing in centrifugal indignation.

It was like a scene from Macbeth, "full of
sound and fury, signifying nothing", and I am tempted to use its previous
line. What wrapped it up in a neat little bow was the splenetic little
man at the end, sputtering a challenge to Senator Cruz to have the "courage" to ask
Senator Hagel about the day he "got the Bronze Star".
"Okay, Ted. Line that one up, Baby!" Joe
agrees about the Bronze Star, then says that Cruz is accusing Hagel of being a
traitor ("… in effect", perhaps realizing how far over the top he has
gone).

Before one gets spun up in these tirades, perhaps it would serve to know what one is talking about. The height of their dudgeon is lessened somewhat by the
fact that Chuck Hagel never received a Bronze Star for his service in Viet
Nam. (This is not to say that he didn't earn one, but that is an entirely
different topic.) But more on that in a moment.

This bubbling frenzy of invective fails to take into
account Cruz' entire body of work on the committee on the subject of Hagel's
background. For that matter, they neglect to mention (nor will MSNBC leap
to remind you) that the same Senator McCain, who is quoted in opposition to
Senator Inhofe's remark, was blistering in his demand that Hagel explain his
statement that the Iraq surge was the "most dangerous foreign policy
blunder in this country since Viet Nam", with Hagel repeatedly stumbling
in his attempt to evade the answer. As for Cruz, he introduces his qualms
about the sincerity of Hagel's foreign policy stances:

As a two-term senator and active participant in foreign
policy discussions, Hagel repeatedly declined to support measures to crack down
on state sponsors of terrorism, belittled the notion of using any means to
prevent a nuclear Iran, advised US leaders to engage in direct negotiations
with rogue nations and hostile terrorist groups, and expressed remarkable
antagonism towards the longstanding US alliance with Israel. Since Hagel
has been nominated to become Defense secretary, however, he's disavowed each
one of these positions. . . .

Of course, anyone can change their mind on one particular
issue; reasonable people do that all the time.However, when a nominee tries to disavow his past positions on virtually
every foreign policy issue, all at the same time, it raises serious questions.

Cruz continues with some damning specifics, including
Hagel's three votes against economic sanctions for Iran; his vote against naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, purveyor
of weapons that have killed hundreds of American servicemen in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as a terrorist group; his
stated resistance to a military option to stop a nuclear-armed Iran; his refusal to recognize Hamas and
Hezbollah as terrorist organizations;
and his public criticism on several occasions about our alliance with
Israel.

But perhaps the moment that was most disconcerting to
Hagel was when Cruz played a clip from an interview that Hagel gave to Al
Jazeera television in 2009.Some internet
sites have copied a portion of the interview but it is truncated, cut
immediately after the specific part, which always gives me pause, whether the
source is from the Left or Right, with a nagging doubt about politically-motivated
editing. I have sought out and included,
then, the entire first part of the interview so that the exchange can be seen
in its entirety.

The clip that Cruz played before the committee hearing starts
at about 8:47, in which Hagel agreed with a viewer who asked about the
possibility of world disarmament "when the image of the US is that of the
world's bully?"Hagel's reply is
"Well, her observation is a good one and it's relevant.'Yes' to her question. . . .", before
sliding off to a paragraph of praise for Obama and Hillary Clinton working with
the Russians on the disarmament issue.The interviewer, perhaps not believing his good luck with such a reply,
follows up at about 10:01 when he states (not asks) that "Well, I mean, that
brings us to the new [Obama] administration that is here in Washington.I think that perception of the United States being
the bully in the world has come largely from what the previous [Bush]
administration has done."So much
for objective journalism, but this provides a second chance for Hagel to state
his view, or to correct that of the interviewer, of the image of the United
States as the world's "bully".Hagel's reply: "Oh, I think that's right."He then hedges a bit about our "seventh
or eighth year of two long wars" being not entirely America's fault, but
the "last administration misplayed a lot of the great goodwill that
redounded" to the US after the terrorist attacks of 11 September
2001.It doesn't really matter which
administration he is criticizing, but here is a representative of the US
government publicly denouncing his own country on a foreign (one might say
enemy) network.Cruz nailed him on that,
and Hagel's clumsy attempt to move on from it was a nadir of his inept testimony.

Now to the question about how Hagel's service as a
soldier in Viet Nam somehow shields
him from criticism.There is no doubt
(as there is with John Kerry) that Hagel served well and honorably.Curiously, due to an Army clerical screw-up,
he fought alongside his brother (in the 9th Infantry Division).On at
least two occasions they saved each other's life, and Hagel was awarded two
Purple Hearts for serious wounds – burns and life-threatening shrapnel.He also received an Army Commendation Medal
for saving a wounded crewman of a burning APC while under fire, from whence he received
his burns.(The medal seems thin gruel to
me for such an act of heroism, but the military decorations system is, again,
another subject entirely.)I salute him,
as should we all, for his steadfast and courageous service, but the question as
raised by the MSNBC panel among others is how should that service be rewarded?

There are those who wish to cash in on the glory,
sometimes inflated, of one's military recognition.(I hasten to note that Hagel himself is not
one of these.)A glowing recent example
is John Kerry and the Swift Boat controversy, but one of the more egregious cases
was Lyndon Johnson's stupefying Silver Star for sitting still in the back of an
airplane when a Japanese fighter made a pass, while he "evidenced marked
coolness".I grew up in the 1950s
and one of the pet peeves of my father (God rest his soul) that I heard was any
politician who advertized that he was veteran.My father would grumble that with 16 million Americans in uniform during
World War II, with a draft, it was an unremarkable claim.Since that time, for a variety of reasons, it
has taken on a far more significant meaning, but the underlying principle remains
the same.Military service teaches
(though there are too many exceptions) that one should advance by demonstrated merit.Whatever recognition one receives through a
commendation is reward enough, but more important is the old-fashion notion
that a good job is its own reward.

But Morning Joe
and Hagel's other supporters keep pushing the notion that his military service
is a distinct qualification in and of itself.I certainly don't understand it that way, and neither does Hagel, I
suspect.There are any number of
veterans with whom I would love to sit down and share a beer, and Chuck Hagel
is certainly among them, but that doesn't mean that he or anyone else is necessarily
qualified, politically or otherwise, for "a position of high trust and
responsibility" because of service or sacrifice.The office of Secretary of Defense, or any
other position for that matter, is not a consolation prize.

1 comment:

Well, they say Hagel is "damaged goods" by now, after his refusal to disclose the financial contributions of his terrorist supporters. Brennan, remains to be seen.You have a stronger stomach than I do, wanting to share a beer with Hagel. His service was long, long ago. In his more honest incarnation, I expect.

Comments are welcome and discussion is open and encouraged. I expect that there will be some occasional disagreement (heaven knows why) or welcome clarification and embellishment, and such are freely solicited.

Consider that all such comments are in the public domain and are expected to be polite, even while contentious. I will delete comments which are ad hominem, as well as those needlessly profane beyond the realm of sputtering incredulity in reaction to some inanity, unless attributed to a quote.

Links to other sources are fine so long as they further the argument or expand on the discussion. All such comments and links are the responsibility of the commenter, and the mere presence herein does not necessarily constitute my agreement.